6 ms·

I fail to understand. Is “comments” and “views on issues” enough to cause such a stir? People’s sensitivity boggles my mind. Can we not say things without havin

I fail to understand. Is “comments” and “views on issues” enough to cause such a stir? People’s sensitivity boggles my mind. Can we not say things without having to walk on eggshells? What kind of unforgiving and judgemental culture are we living in?

dx87 7y ago
If it makes you feel any better, not everywhere is like that. I work at a mid sized technology consulting company on the east coast, and I've heard multiple managers say that they hate when they have to manage developers from the west coast. My manager told us about a time she got a nasty email from the lead developer of a team because she started an email with "Hey guys" instead of a gender neutral greeting.
- cube2222 7y ago
  Just saying, guys in the plural is gender neutral. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/guy https://www.dictionary.com/browse/guy
  - moultano 7y ago
    How many guys have you dated?
    - muchachos 7y ago
      Is it that some would prefer we only speak in gender neutral esperanto? Many languages operate with a defacto indeterminate/masculine combination gender as default. With no harm implied, it presumes that, as with opinions, everyone has an asshole, and you can bet their shit stinks, and that's all you really need to know about anyone, when push comes to shove. Assume all strangers are diseased and untouchable.
    - darpa_escapee 7y ago
      Context matters.
    - EGreg 7y ago
      “You guys” is gender neutral.
- smelendez 7y ago
  That is regional, though. I'm from New York and I've addressed groups of older female relatives as "you guys" without anyone batting an eye. In other parts of the country that's not common and people see "guys" as gendered, and people feel like you're forgetting they're there. The word "dude" as a form of address is gender neutral and business appropriate some places and not others. It's a hard problem: Y'all works some places but sounds goofy and affected in others. Same with "folks."
  - mwfunk 7y ago
    I've lived in the Rust Belt, the southeast, and California for big chunks of my life and you're right on about regionalisms. For language or social norms in general, all that matters is how something's taken, not what was meant by it. If I know that some phrase is really uncommon or has different shades of meaning in a different part of the country or a different part of the world, I also know that if I use that phrase in that other place, it will get interpreted differently from what it means to me. It can be frustrating if I haven't yet picked up on the differences, but it's just the nature of communication. I have also tried to hang on to "y'all" and "folks" since moving to the west coast. "Folks" is a harder sell though, when I use it feels more like an affectation. But that's my perception of others' perceptions. Maybe I'm pulling off "folks" without realizing it. But "y'all" has more staying power, because it's a legitimately useful term that's otherwise missing from the English language.
    - suppressingfire 7y ago
      "you all" or "youse" can work as reasonable alternatives. I haven't tried "tons" since I've never actually heard it "used in anger." One less fraught, but equally confusing terms are "a couple" vs. "a few" vs. "a handful" (some believe "couple" = 2 whereas others treat it and the others as explicitly more fuzzy). Often it's best to just assume as little context as possible and be a little more explicit and verbose.
      - mwfunk 7y ago
        Also Pittsburgh gets an honorable mention- they have "yinz" instead of y'all or youse: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yinz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yinz
- laughinghan 7y ago
  It's funny, the mind-boggling sensitivity definitely goes both ways. I've known people who received direct but totally polite feedback suggesting they use one of many delightful gender neutral greetings instead of "guys", and became incredibly defensive. Probably described the feedback with a word similar to "nasty".
  - SmellyGeekBoy 7y ago
    There's nothing "polite" about trying to create conflict out of trivial non-issues.
    - laughinghan 7y ago
      Since it's such a trivial non-issue, shouldn't it be easy to accommodate someone's preference without conflict? Do you believe that anyone who's ever expressed a preference on a trivial non-issue was deliberately trying to create conflict?
    - moultano 7y ago
      You don't get to call things "trivial non-issues" when by default they all tilt your way.
- astura 7y ago
  What about the email was "nasty?"
- SmellyGeekBoy 7y ago
  Strange, I consider "guys" to be gender neutral. Presumably "guys and gals" would be offensive to non-binary folk? So what's the acceptable format? "guys, gals, and... others?"
  - killjoywashere 7y ago
    "Hello", "good morning/afternoon/evening". In Japanese, "Ohio/Konichiwa", in German "Guten tag" etc.
  - astura 7y ago
    All, Please make sure to put a cover sheet on your TPS reports. Team, Please make sure to put a cover sheet on your TPS reports. Everyone, Please make sure to put a cover sheet on your TPS reports. Good Afternoon/Morning, Please make sure to put a cover sheet on your TPS reports. Staff, Please make sure to put a cover sheet on your TPS reports. I just quickly browsed through my emails I've received this year (coworkers, customers, vendors) and that covers all the ones I've received. All of those are perfectly acceptable. I wouldn't be personally use "guys," "gals," or "guys and gals" in a non-friend situation.
    - MRD85 7y ago
      All of those comes across far more formally than "guys", they remind me of a written order from a military officer (source: 10 years in the Army). For me "guys" seems far friendlier.
  - BeetleB 7y ago
    >So what's the acceptable format? "guys, gals, and... others?" Folks,...
- veryworried 7y ago
  I’ve heard the same protest that MITM attack should be changed to “person-in-the-middle” attack. From west coast professionals no doubt.
- Jun8 7y ago
  Despite what many people say, usage of you guys as non-gendered address, similar to the regional y'all, is rather well-established: https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/11816/is-guy-gender-neutral https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/11816/is-guy-gen.... However, in corporate environments it's still a good maxim to be mindful of people who have non-standard sensibilities, e.g. I personally use you guys as email address only for all-male group of recipients.
- MRD85 7y ago
  Why aren't they respecting your diversity and cultural language? I mean this in a serious way. There is a clash here between your cultural language and their views on gendered language and they immediately got offended by cultural differences and tried to impose their culture on your manager.
twy6979 7y ago
This is an ethics council. Things like advocating against the right for certain classes of people to exist in public spaces are relevant to deciding if someone should be a member of an ethics council.
- AntiTechTechie 7y ago
  > advocating against the right for certain classes of people to exist in public spaces When did she do this?
  - mike00632 7y ago
    The Heritage Foundation is famous for their attacks on LGBT people, saying that they shouldn't have children and shouldn't have basic human rights. Literally there are tweets from the exact person in question suggesting that trans people don't exist.
    - tree_of_item 7y ago
      Literally there are no such tweets.
      - krishicks 7y ago
        They may be referring to tweets such as this, linked elsewhere in the comments: https://mobile.twitter.com/KayColesJames/status/1108365238779498497 https://mobile.twitter.com/KayColesJames/status/110836523877...
        tree_of_item 7y ago
        The text of the tweet: > Today @heritage will critique gender identity @UN_CSW because powerful nations are pressing for the radical redefining of sex. If they can change the definition of women to include men, they can erase efforts to empower women economically, socially, and politically. #CSW63 That tweet does not say anything like "trans people don't exist", or that they should be harmed in any way, or that they aren't human. That tweet expresses a perfectly reasonable sentiment that many others share: that human beings are sexually dimorphic and cannot change sex. This sort of hyperbole on the part of transactivists is very frustrating: anyone who doesn't agree with extremist gender ideology is painted as a "bigot". This is more important than one AI ethics panel with questionable authority. Google is in a position to censor and influence a huge amount of speech on the internet, and the fact that they were targeted by and arguably caved to a small extremist group is very troubling.
caconym_ 7y ago
> Is “comments” and “views on issues” enough to cause such a stir?' Why not? When people in positions of power hold ignorant and/or harmful opinions, a stir should be made. One individual in particular comes to mind. > What kind of unforgiving and judgemental culture are we living in? The kind where public figures curry favor with their bases of obstinately illiberal^[1] followers by intentionally spreading divisive sentiment? Nobody is a victim just because people disagree with what they're saying and say as much to their faces. Bad ideas do not in theory deserve a platform beyond what simple freedom of expression provides them. Striving for "diversity of thought" does not mean we should elevate willful ignorance and demagoguery. ^[1] In the general sense of the word. Far-left whackos included, though I think they're a bit less scary than what's going on on the right these days.
- ehsankia 7y ago
  This wasn't really a "position of power" though, it was just a council that would meet once in a while to talk about AI ethics. It was also 1 person out of 8. Don't get me wrong, I think her views are despicable, but if you can't even allow a single person of opposing view in your council, that only shows insecurity in your views. I highly doubt having one person with some past bigoted opinions is going to completely overthrow an 8 person council. If anything, once you stack your council with people who all have the same views, then the one individual that comes to your mind will use exactly that to completely undermine the entire council.
  - DanBC 7y ago
    > some past bigoted opinions These are not opinions she held in the past, these are opinions she holds now and which she actively promotes.
  - matt4077 7y ago
    The are opinions that I would vehemently disagree with, yet not consider illegitimate. The Catholic Church, for example, does and says all sorts of horrible shit. Yet they have a rich intellectual history, are somewhat consistent (i. e. against abortion and also against the death penalty), and for better or worse represent a sizable portion of the population. This person was peddling in ludicrous Obama-killed-his-friend conspiracy theories. If you want them on your ethics board, you need to also invite flat earthers and people believing there’s a ham sandwich that rules the world. Because who are you to judge some opinions more legit than others.
mwfunk 7y ago
I agree with you in principle, but what you are describing is a safe space in which all viewpoints can be voiced without judgement, and in which everyone has to politely sugarcoat major disagreements instead of "telling it like it is". I'm not disagreeing with you- that kind of environment can be nice and intellectually liberating in its own way, as long as it isn't a global setting. But that is what you're asking for. Judgement-free safe spaces where everyone has to be nice to each other.
- suppressingfire 7y ago
  I tend to agree. While I find it painful to hear criticism when I inadvertently use words or phrases that are taken hurtfully, I nevertheless would prefer to be offered a wider perspective about how my words and actions are viewed so I can more clearly communicate in the future making fewer verbal blunders that detract from my point.
matt4077 7y ago
She was chosen for a position that does nothing but comment and publish views on issues. So yes. This seems to be strange obsession of HN: people excusing (with words) the worst possible statements (words), because „words are not actions“ or „words have no meaning“.
- zimpenfish 7y ago
  > This seems to be strange obsession of HN Because they want to be able to use whatever words they want without consequence? Yet they insist on posting somewhere that does have consequences for word usage - downvotes, flagging, and bans. You'd think they'd all go to a freer platform.
yesofcourse 7y ago
> Is “comments” and “views on issues” enough to cause such a stir? Of course? If someone tweeted "Unfortunately, the holocaust didn't happen, but we can change that" and their view on the issue of "the Jewish Question" was "the parasites must be exterminated," then I imagine that you would be up in arms if they were ever appointed to an ethics council. You might not think that James' views are bad enough to warrant the outcry, but can't you at least imagine why someone might think that? If you were trans, for instance, might you be worried about this person getting a position of potential influence?
- bzbarsky 7y ago
  I'm Jewish. I would not in fact be up in arms if your hypothetical person were on an AI ethics council, if I felt they might have useful things to contribute outside the context of "the Jewish Question". I suspect I would personally be happier if people could be found who could offer similar contributions without that particular viewpoint, but "mildly unhappy" is about as far as I would go in this particular scenario. Now if the council had multiple people like you describe, or worse yet a majority of them, then I would certainly be up in arms, yes. Just like I would be up in arms if a majority of such a council held _any_ extreme-by-society's-standards position (Greenpeace member, orthodox Jew, Catholic priest, Communist party member, hard libertarian, etc, etc). From my point of view, the most dangerous failure mode for an AI ethics council is groupthink that leads them to not notice problems that should get noticed. If the council is set up right, it should not require unanimity, or even a majority to flag something as an issue.
  - yesofcourse 7y ago
    > "mildly unhappy" is about as far as I would go in this particular scenario. I suspect that you're only willing to say that because, at the moment, nazis are not anywhere close to being in a position to carry out any of their promises. Let's imagine that 30% of the general population agreed with this person's views, but that they were highly unpopular among educated people and had little influence in certain institutions, such as Google. Would you still be shrugging your shoulders and saying that it was worth it to have a diversity of opinion, or would you be scared, and willing to do anything you could to prevent this person and their views from having any more influence? > From my point of view, the most dangerous failure mode for an AI ethics council is groupthink that leads them to not notice problems that should get noticed. Hmm… I didn't think there was much of a chance of this council producing anything of value to begin with, so I basically just saw it as a minor endorsement of a small group of people. Maybe my opinion on this matter would be different if I were more concerned about AI and thought that there was meaningful progress to be made by such a group.
linuxftw 7y ago
It's a tool of control, nothing more. Being guilty of wrong-think is enough to get you blackballed in the tech world. Never mind the goal posts are continually moving.

dx87 7y ago

If it makes you feel any better, not everywhere is like that. I work at a mid sized technology consulting company on the east coast, and I've heard multiple managers say that they hate when they have to manage developers from the west coast. My manager told us about a time she got a nasty email from the lead developer of a team because she started an email with "Hey guys" instead of a gender neutral greeting.

cube2222 7y ago
Just saying, guys in the plural is gender neutral. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/guy https://www.dictionary.com/browse/guy
- moultano 7y ago
  How many guys have you dated?
  - muchachos 7y ago
    Is it that some would prefer we only speak in gender neutral esperanto? Many languages operate with a defacto indeterminate/masculine combination gender as default. With no harm implied, it presumes that, as with opinions, everyone has an asshole, and you can bet their shit stinks, and that's all you really need to know about anyone, when push comes to shove. Assume all strangers are diseased and untouchable.
  - darpa_escapee 7y ago
    Context matters.
  - EGreg 7y ago
    “You guys” is gender neutral.
smelendez 7y ago
That is regional, though. I'm from New York and I've addressed groups of older female relatives as "you guys" without anyone batting an eye. In other parts of the country that's not common and people see "guys" as gendered, and people feel like you're forgetting they're there. The word "dude" as a form of address is gender neutral and business appropriate some places and not others. It's a hard problem: Y'all works some places but sounds goofy and affected in others. Same with "folks."
- mwfunk 7y ago
  I've lived in the Rust Belt, the southeast, and California for big chunks of my life and you're right on about regionalisms. For language or social norms in general, all that matters is how something's taken, not what was meant by it. If I know that some phrase is really uncommon or has different shades of meaning in a different part of the country or a different part of the world, I also know that if I use that phrase in that other place, it will get interpreted differently from what it means to me. It can be frustrating if I haven't yet picked up on the differences, but it's just the nature of communication. I have also tried to hang on to "y'all" and "folks" since moving to the west coast. "Folks" is a harder sell though, when I use it feels more like an affectation. But that's my perception of others' perceptions. Maybe I'm pulling off "folks" without realizing it. But "y'all" has more staying power, because it's a legitimately useful term that's otherwise missing from the English language.
  - suppressingfire 7y ago
    "you all" or "youse" can work as reasonable alternatives. I haven't tried "tons" since I've never actually heard it "used in anger." One less fraught, but equally confusing terms are "a couple" vs. "a few" vs. "a handful" (some believe "couple" = 2 whereas others treat it and the others as explicitly more fuzzy). Often it's best to just assume as little context as possible and be a little more explicit and verbose.
    - mwfunk 7y ago
      Also Pittsburgh gets an honorable mention- they have "yinz" instead of y'all or youse: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yinz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yinz
laughinghan 7y ago
It's funny, the mind-boggling sensitivity definitely goes both ways. I've known people who received direct but totally polite feedback suggesting they use one of many delightful gender neutral greetings instead of "guys", and became incredibly defensive. Probably described the feedback with a word similar to "nasty".
- SmellyGeekBoy 7y ago
  There's nothing "polite" about trying to create conflict out of trivial non-issues.
  - laughinghan 7y ago
    Since it's such a trivial non-issue, shouldn't it be easy to accommodate someone's preference without conflict? Do you believe that anyone who's ever expressed a preference on a trivial non-issue was deliberately trying to create conflict?
  - moultano 7y ago
    You don't get to call things "trivial non-issues" when by default they all tilt your way.
astura 7y ago
What about the email was "nasty?"
SmellyGeekBoy 7y ago
Strange, I consider "guys" to be gender neutral. Presumably "guys and gals" would be offensive to non-binary folk? So what's the acceptable format? "guys, gals, and... others?"
- killjoywashere 7y ago
  "Hello", "good morning/afternoon/evening". In Japanese, "Ohio/Konichiwa", in German "Guten tag" etc.
- astura 7y ago
  All, Please make sure to put a cover sheet on your TPS reports. Team, Please make sure to put a cover sheet on your TPS reports. Everyone, Please make sure to put a cover sheet on your TPS reports. Good Afternoon/Morning, Please make sure to put a cover sheet on your TPS reports. Staff, Please make sure to put a cover sheet on your TPS reports. I just quickly browsed through my emails I've received this year (coworkers, customers, vendors) and that covers all the ones I've received. All of those are perfectly acceptable. I wouldn't be personally use "guys," "gals," or "guys and gals" in a non-friend situation.
  - MRD85 7y ago
    All of those comes across far more formally than "guys", they remind me of a written order from a military officer (source: 10 years in the Army). For me "guys" seems far friendlier.
- BeetleB 7y ago
  >So what's the acceptable format? "guys, gals, and... others?" Folks,...
veryworried 7y ago
I’ve heard the same protest that MITM attack should be changed to “person-in-the-middle” attack. From west coast professionals no doubt.
Jun8 7y ago
Despite what many people say, usage of you guys as non-gendered address, similar to the regional y'all, is rather well-established: https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/11816/is-guy-gender-neutral https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/11816/is-guy-gen.... However, in corporate environments it's still a good maxim to be mindful of people who have non-standard sensibilities, e.g. I personally use you guys as email address only for all-male group of recipients.
MRD85 7y ago
Why aren't they respecting your diversity and cultural language? I mean this in a serious way. There is a clash here between your cultural language and their views on gendered language and they immediately got offended by cultural differences and tried to impose their culture on your manager.

twy6979 7y ago

This is an ethics council. Things like advocating against the right for certain classes of people to exist in public spaces are relevant to deciding if someone should be a member of an ethics council.

AntiTechTechie 7y ago
> advocating against the right for certain classes of people to exist in public spaces When did she do this?
- mike00632 7y ago
  The Heritage Foundation is famous for their attacks on LGBT people, saying that they shouldn't have children and shouldn't have basic human rights. Literally there are tweets from the exact person in question suggesting that trans people don't exist.
  - tree_of_item 7y ago
    Literally there are no such tweets.
    - krishicks 7y ago
      They may be referring to tweets such as this, linked elsewhere in the comments: https://mobile.twitter.com/KayColesJames/status/1108365238779498497 https://mobile.twitter.com/KayColesJames/status/110836523877...
      - tree_of_item 7y ago
        The text of the tweet: > Today @heritage will critique gender identity @UN_CSW because powerful nations are pressing for the radical redefining of sex. If they can change the definition of women to include men, they can erase efforts to empower women economically, socially, and politically. #CSW63 That tweet does not say anything like "trans people don't exist", or that they should be harmed in any way, or that they aren't human. That tweet expresses a perfectly reasonable sentiment that many others share: that human beings are sexually dimorphic and cannot change sex. This sort of hyperbole on the part of transactivists is very frustrating: anyone who doesn't agree with extremist gender ideology is painted as a "bigot". This is more important than one AI ethics panel with questionable authority. Google is in a position to censor and influence a huge amount of speech on the internet, and the fact that they were targeted by and arguably caved to a small extremist group is very troubling.

caconym_ 7y ago

> Is “comments” and “views on issues” enough to cause such a stir?' Why not? When people in positions of power hold ignorant and/or harmful opinions, a stir should be made. One individual in particular comes to mind. > What kind of unforgiving and judgemental culture are we living in? The kind where public figures curry favor with their bases of obstinately illiberal^[1] followers by intentionally spreading divisive sentiment? Nobody is a victim just because people disagree with what they're saying and say as much to their faces. Bad ideas do not in theory deserve a platform beyond what simple freedom of expression provides them. Striving for "diversity of thought" does not mean we should elevate willful ignorance and demagoguery. ^[1] In the general sense of the word. Far-left whackos included, though I think they're a bit less scary than what's going on on the right these days.

ehsankia 7y ago
This wasn't really a "position of power" though, it was just a council that would meet once in a while to talk about AI ethics. It was also 1 person out of 8. Don't get me wrong, I think her views are despicable, but if you can't even allow a single person of opposing view in your council, that only shows insecurity in your views. I highly doubt having one person with some past bigoted opinions is going to completely overthrow an 8 person council. If anything, once you stack your council with people who all have the same views, then the one individual that comes to your mind will use exactly that to completely undermine the entire council.
- DanBC 7y ago
  > some past bigoted opinions These are not opinions she held in the past, these are opinions she holds now and which she actively promotes.
- matt4077 7y ago
  The are opinions that I would vehemently disagree with, yet not consider illegitimate. The Catholic Church, for example, does and says all sorts of horrible shit. Yet they have a rich intellectual history, are somewhat consistent (i. e. against abortion and also against the death penalty), and for better or worse represent a sizable portion of the population. This person was peddling in ludicrous Obama-killed-his-friend conspiracy theories. If you want them on your ethics board, you need to also invite flat earthers and people believing there’s a ham sandwich that rules the world. Because who are you to judge some opinions more legit than others.

mwfunk 7y ago

I agree with you in principle, but what you are describing is a safe space in which all viewpoints can be voiced without judgement, and in which everyone has to politely sugarcoat major disagreements instead of "telling it like it is". I'm not disagreeing with you- that kind of environment can be nice and intellectually liberating in its own way, as long as it isn't a global setting. But that is what you're asking for. Judgement-free safe spaces where everyone has to be nice to each other.

suppressingfire 7y ago
I tend to agree. While I find it painful to hear criticism when I inadvertently use words or phrases that are taken hurtfully, I nevertheless would prefer to be offered a wider perspective about how my words and actions are viewed so I can more clearly communicate in the future making fewer verbal blunders that detract from my point.

matt4077 7y ago

She was chosen for a position that does nothing but comment and publish views on issues. So yes. This seems to be strange obsession of HN: people excusing (with words) the worst possible statements (words), because „words are not actions“ or „words have no meaning“.

zimpenfish 7y ago
> This seems to be strange obsession of HN Because they want to be able to use whatever words they want without consequence? Yet they insist on posting somewhere that does have consequences for word usage - downvotes, flagging, and bans. You'd think they'd all go to a freer platform.

yesofcourse 7y ago

> Is “comments” and “views on issues” enough to cause such a stir? Of course? If someone tweeted "Unfortunately, the holocaust didn't happen, but we can change that" and their view on the issue of "the Jewish Question" was "the parasites must be exterminated," then I imagine that you would be up in arms if they were ever appointed to an ethics council. You might not think that James' views are bad enough to warrant the outcry, but can't you at least imagine why someone might think that? If you were trans, for instance, might you be worried about this person getting a position of potential influence?

bzbarsky 7y ago
I'm Jewish. I would not in fact be up in arms if your hypothetical person were on an AI ethics council, if I felt they might have useful things to contribute outside the context of "the Jewish Question". I suspect I would personally be happier if people could be found who could offer similar contributions without that particular viewpoint, but "mildly unhappy" is about as far as I would go in this particular scenario. Now if the council had multiple people like you describe, or worse yet a majority of them, then I would certainly be up in arms, yes. Just like I would be up in arms if a majority of such a council held _any_ extreme-by-society's-standards position (Greenpeace member, orthodox Jew, Catholic priest, Communist party member, hard libertarian, etc, etc). From my point of view, the most dangerous failure mode for an AI ethics council is groupthink that leads them to not notice problems that should get noticed. If the council is set up right, it should not require unanimity, or even a majority to flag something as an issue.
- yesofcourse 7y ago
  > "mildly unhappy" is about as far as I would go in this particular scenario. I suspect that you're only willing to say that because, at the moment, nazis are not anywhere close to being in a position to carry out any of their promises. Let's imagine that 30% of the general population agreed with this person's views, but that they were highly unpopular among educated people and had little influence in certain institutions, such as Google. Would you still be shrugging your shoulders and saying that it was worth it to have a diversity of opinion, or would you be scared, and willing to do anything you could to prevent this person and their views from having any more influence? > From my point of view, the most dangerous failure mode for an AI ethics council is groupthink that leads them to not notice problems that should get noticed. Hmm… I didn't think there was much of a chance of this council producing anything of value to begin with, so I basically just saw it as a minor endorsement of a small group of people. Maybe my opinion on this matter would be different if I were more concerned about AI and thought that there was meaningful progress to be made by such a group.

linuxftw 7y ago

It's a tool of control, nothing more. Being guilty of wrong-think is enough to get you blackballed in the tech world. Never mind the goal posts are continually moving.